wump Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 it was saved with fhg codec instead of LAME. god you people are retarded as hell. Yeah because someone that doesn't understand how codecs work is retarded right? derrrrp Link to comment
PLUSH Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Yeah because someone that doesn't understand how codecs work is retarded right?derrrrp Acting like you know what your talking about when you are totally uneducated on the matter is very retarded, yes. "Artist gave out song? Peaks at 22khz instead of 20khz? It's a transcode boost" (facepalm) derpaderp son. Link to comment
samsamsam Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Acting like you know what your talking about when you are totally uneducated on the matter is very retarded, yes. "Artist gave out song? Peaks at 22khz instead of 20khz? It's a transcode boost" (facepalm) derpaderp son. No ones called it a boost - First fail There is no obvious proof of what it was encoded with in the tags - Second Fail Explain why some lossless tunes share the same hideous spek appearance, considering theres no mp3 encoding included Link to comment
tncee Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 you guys are mixing up mastering and mixing down, a good tune should sound good regardless of whether it has been mastered. mastering a tune doesn't just magically add high end where there was none to begin with... true words right here. if a tune peaks at 16khz unmastered this would mean he's using 22.050khZ Samples from what i cant think of ^^ he's just trollin ^^ Link to comment
happytrailz93 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 yea i admit i dont know pretty much anything about mastering/mixdowns/production at all, all i was saying is the spek doesnt look pretty, and that it was and old tune and that probably had something to do with it. but you cant complain with a free tune, especially a funtcase tune, i mean the last song we got from him besides remixes was 50 calibre correct me if im wrong Link to comment
ChiefKronic Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) Ok i understand that this is a big topic for alot of people, but lets not flood this thread. This discussion is about spek's and mastering, not funtcase. Feel free to continue your argument here. http://www.edmc.nu/producing/412829-help-me-my-spek.html or start a new discussion thread, otherwise chill ya bloodclat pieces and stop bitchin. - edit Ran i through audacity, tried to level some of the highs and increase the bass slightly. http://www36.zippyshare.com/v/12324646/file.html Edited May 22, 2012 by ChiefKronic Link to comment
Geezer Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 it was saved with fhg codec instead of LAME. god you people are retarded as hell. No ones called it a boost - First failThere is no obvious proof of what it was encoded with in the tags - Second Fail Explain why some lossless tunes share the same hideous spek appearance, considering theres no mp3 encoding included This tune is encoded in FhG. If people are used to LAME encodes, FhG encodes can look a bit weird. This is why you should use your ears as a guide and only use spek as a quick check or a backup. I personally much prefer LAME but what you gonna do Link to comment
malarzinho7 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Move to request,im think,btw huge track. Link to comment
ChiefKronic Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Move to request,im think,btw huge track. seeing as this track is straight from funty, theres no point in moving it to requests because its clearly the best version anyone could get. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now